Where Will Ny Asbestos Litigation Be 1 Year From Today?
New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer sufferers can receive compensation through an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. These diseases are usually brought on by asbestos exposure. Symptoms may not appear for a long time.
Judges who manage the cases of NYCAL have developed a pattern that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further undermine the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued), multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, as well as multiple expert witness. In addition there are typically specific workplaces that are the focus of these cases because asbestos was utilized in a variety products and workers were exposed to asbestos while working. Asbestos-related victims are frequently diagnosed with serious diseases such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has its own unique method of dealing with asbestos litigation. In reality, it is one of the largest dockets in the United States. It is administered under a special Case Management Order. This CMO was created to handle asbestos cases involving numerous defendants. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the scene of some of the highest plaintiff verdicts in the past.
New York Court of Appeals made some major changes to the NYCAL docket recently. In 2015, the political establishment in Albany was shaken to the foundation when former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of killing every reasonably crafted tort reform bill in the legislature for more than a decade while working for the plaintiffs' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time supervisor of the NYCAL docket, resigned in April 2014 amidst reports that she had offered the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm "red-carpet treatment." She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton, who implemented a number of changes to the docket.
Moulton implemented new rules in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to provide proof that their products are not accountable for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. He also implemented new rules that stipulated that he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new policy could have a significant impact on the speed of discovery for cases in the NYCAL docket, and could lead to an outcome that is more favorable for defendants.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 last week and ordered that all future asbestos cases be transferred to another District. This should result in more efficient and uniform handling of these cases, since the MDL currently MDL has earned itself reputation for a history of abuse of discovery in the past, unjustified sanctions, and a lack of evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption and mismanagement by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement the scandals surrounding Sheldon Silver's ties with asbestos lawyers have finally brought attention to New York City’s rigged asbestos court. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now in charge of NYCAL, has already held a Town Hall meeting with defense lawyers to discuss complaints about the "rigged" system that favors an asbestos law firm with a strong reputation.
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit, with many of the same defendants (companies who are being sued) and plaintiffs (people who file the lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also involves similar workplaces where a lot of people were exposed asbestos, leading to mesothelioma or lung cancer. This can result in large verdicts that can clog the court dockets.
To combat this issue To address this issue, several states have passed laws to limit the types of claims that can be filed. These laws typically address medical criteria, two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws states continue to see an influx of asbestos lawsuits. In Redlands asbestos lawyers to reduce the number of cases filed and speed up the resolution process certain courts have established special "asbestos dockets" that use a variety of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance is one that requires applicants to meet certain medical requirements, has a two-disease rule and uses an expedited trial schedule.
Certain states have also enacted laws that restrict the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to deter bad behavior and provide more compensation to victims. Whatever the case is filed in federal or state court, you should work with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to understand how these laws affect your specific case.
Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation including commercial litigation, product liability and general liability issues. He has extensive experience in defending clients against claims alleging exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He has also defended cases that claim exposure to other contaminants and hazards like vibration, noise, mold and environmental contaminants.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Thousands of people have lost their lives from asbestos exposure in New York. In five counties, mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits against companies of asbestos-based products in order to receive compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits make asbestos companies accountable for their rash choices to place profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have experience representing clients of all backgrounds in court against the largest asbestos manufacturers in the country. Their legal strategies may result in a generous settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long-standing history in New York, and continues to be the subject of news. The 2022 national mesothelioma lawsuit report by KCIC declares New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuits just behind California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judiciary has been buffeted by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 on federal corruption charges related to millions of dollar referral fees that he received from the politically powerful plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. After the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who had been the head of NYCAL since 2008, was replaced amidst reports that she had given "red-carpet treatment" to Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos lawsuits.
Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has stated that defendants won't be able to get summary judgment without the existence of a "scientifically credible and admissible study" showing that the measured dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was too low to trigger mesothelioma. This effectively ends the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.
Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must show an injury to their health as a result of exposure to asbestos for a court to award compensatory damages. This ruling, combined with a decision from early 2016 that held that medical monitoring was not a tort claim makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defence lawyer to win a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
The most recent case on which Judge Toal is in charge of, a mesothelioma case filed against DOVER GREENS, alleges that the company was in violation of asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 for an event for fundraising. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP requirements by failing to conduct an inspection of the campus; notify EPA before starting renovation activities and to properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos; and have a trained representative present during renovations.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury filled up federal court dockets and judges' judicial resources were depleted, making it impossible for them to address criminal matters or important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely payment of deserving victims, irritated innocent families, and prompted companies to devote inordinate amounts of money and resources for defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims are filed by those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases after being exposed to asbestos in a workplace environment. The majority of asbestos claims are filed by construction workers or shipyard workers, as well as other tradesmen that worked on buildings made or that contain asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers either during the process of manufacturing or when working on the actual structure.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. From the late 1970s to the early 1980s, asbestos exposure caused an explosion of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. This occurred in state and federal courts across the nation.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that their illnesses resulted from negligence in the production of asbestos products and that companies did not warn them of the dangers that come with exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were brought in state courts, a majority were brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, when they realized that this litigation constituted "terrible calendar congestion," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman jointly consolidated for settlement and pretrial purposes hundreds of federal and state cases that alleged exposure to asbestos at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases, which were referred to as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of the Special Master.
While the majority of these cases were connected to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were defendants in other asbestos cases. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc. as successors to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Company Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.